If you do - or if you read any of the other so-called "mainstream" sources - you need to watch this exchange between Steve LIESman and Rick Santelli. It's a classic, and puts into stark relief exactly what you, the consumer and ordinary man, are dealing with when you listen or read the "mainstream" media:

States reported 4,178,780 persons claiming EUC (Emergency Unemployment Compensation) benefits for the week ending Nov. 21, an increase of 327,729 from the prior week. There were 729,256 claimants in the comparable week in 2008. EUC weekly claims include first, second, and third tier activity.

No such thing as "Emergency Unemployment Compensation" eh Steve?

Nice try.

Oh, and it is likely worse than it appears, because we are now far enough into this that people who were on extended compensation (the "emergency programs") are starting to roll off. As I have pointed out when the monthly employment situation reports are issued we get some color on this, but even there, not as much as we'd like.

The government, of course, has no interest in delineating exactly how many people fall off the rolls as a consequence of long-term unemployment. If they were to do that then we would have a reasonably accurate count of the actual unemployed in this country, but if they did that we would also likely have to deduce - and report - that our employment situation today is, in fact, not much different than it was during the depths of the Depression in the 1930s.

That just will not do, and as a consequence the government slices and dices the numbers, making it difficult or even impossible to determine exactly what is going on, and the so-called "senior economics reporters" who allegedly have read hundreds of these reports claim that the emergency program - which showed significant gains in the number of people collecting benefits under it (remember, this is a seasonally strong period for Christmas, right?) - simply doesn't exist.

Is that ignorance, willful ignorance, a mistake - or orders from superiors at the network?

Does it matter, if you're the one who is misled into thinking that the economy is doing better than it really is, and thus make a poor business or personal economic decision?

One final thought: There are anecdotal reports of many seasonally-hired workers being laid off already, before Christmas, as expected sales gains (promoted no doubt by all this media pumping) have failed to materialize. These people will not show up in the initial jobless claims: they either won't have worked enough to qualify to file a new claim, or if they were previously receiving benefits they won't be an "initial" claim. They will, however, show up in the household survey either in December or January.

LOL good stuff. A friend of mine works on the board of trade. According to him, the media is pumping up the market and being very "nice" with the unemployment numbers. He says after the holidays be prepared for a big dive in the market. He estimates the DOW heading back under 6000 by the summer. It is now over 10,000 if im not mistaken. The retail market is the big thing that is going down he said...which at this point is common knowledge.

I think the fact Obama and his "advisors" are making all of these statements is pretty scary. In everything they do, they seem to be separating themselves from any and all responsibility and accountability, when in fact, they are working for the FED. 2010 is gonna be a hell of a show.

I think the fact Obama and his "advisors" are making all of thesestatements is pretty scary. In everything they do, they seem to be separating themselves from any and all responsibility and accountability, when in fact, they are working for the FED. 2010 is gonna be a hell of a show.

"I heard a 'statement' today on a radio show (I think Hannity), that Obama has given himself a solid B+ for his efforts since being in office."

LOL Oh boy you missed it. Oprah did a "White House Christmas Special" That wasn't even the worst of what he said, the whole show was... It was...how do you say it....artificial vomit. A pure slap in the face of any intelligence period. I didn't catch all of it, but what hit me hardest were these few, incredibly arrogant red-flag words. I can't remember exactly, but it went along these lines...

OBAMA, "Here in America, as the world's SOLE MILITARY SUPERPOWER, we have a duty to uphold justice where deemed necessary."

My first thought to that comment was, is there a BCS computer ranking for that? (For anyone that doesn't know, the BCS is a college football rating computer system)

My second thought was, did he just declare war with the world? The comment was so arrogant and abbrasive, I couldn't find any sense of it. For the leader of a free world, to make such a statement, made me sick to my stomach. He basically said to everyone,"you don't like us, come and get it." THIS GUY WANTS WAR MORE THAN BUSH, MORE THAN ANYONE, AND THE "PEOPLE FELL FOR THIS ENORMOUS HOAX."

Dec. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Confidence among U.S. consumers rose in December for a second month as pessimism over the outlook for jobs diminished.

It did?

The share of consumers who said jobs are plentiful fell to 2.9 percent from 3.1 percent, according to the Conference Board. The proportion of people who said jobs are hard to get decreased to 48.6 percent from 49.2 percent.

Ok, so jobs are less "plentiful" but are "less hard to get"? That's improvement.... how? (By the way, 3% of people believing that jobs are "plentiful" is pretty-much indistinguishable from zero, no?)

The gauge of expectations for the next six months climbed to 75.6, the highest since the recession began two years ago, from 70.3 the prior month.

WHAT expectations? Oh, general expectations. Yes, yes, we know that the incessant media pumping makes people "feel" better. But...

The proportion of people who expect their incomes to rise over the next six months decreased to 10.3 percent from 10.9 percent. The share expecting more jobs improved to 16.2 percent from 15.8 percent.

So we expect more jobs (by a bit) but less income (by a bit.)

Hmmm... can you remind me again what drives consumer spending? It was home equity withdrawal but you can't do that any more. It was then (late 2007 and into 2008) credit cards, but those are being closed down and pared back too.

So let's see... that would be.... current income, right?

The FOMC has said:

“Deterioration in the labor market is abating,” the FOMC said in a statement Dec. 16 after meeting in Washington. “Household spending appears to be expanding at a moderate rate, though it remains constrained by a weak labor market, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit.”

Modest income growth eh? Uh huh. Is that "income growth" all handouts from the government? That's pretty much a function of the government being able to continue to borrow and spend like a drunken sailor, yes?

How exactly is that going to work out with the bond market saying "bite me!" This is what the measured move off the current pattern in the TNX is saying lies in our reasonably-near-term future:

See CHART at link below...

That in turn completes this pattern, which targets ~6.1% on the ten year bond:

See CHART at link below...

That ought to be quite interesting - a roughly 60% increase in 10 year bond rates eh? Since the 10yr is the best proxy for mortgage rates (they tend to run about 100-150bps over 10s) this squares with the 30-year bond projection that would put mortgages up in the 7s.

Good luck on that "expected improvement" with that sort of move in the bond market, say much less what this will do to government borrowing costs and the government's ideas about borrowing another $1.7 trillion this fiscal year.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is trumpeting a new White House estimate that his top economist calls "stunning": His stimulus plan has already created or saved up to 2 million jobs.

The analysis is part of the administration's quarterly report to Congress on the controversial $787 billion package of spending and tax cuts he signed weeks after taking office.

Obama planned to highlight the report Wednesday during a visit to a Lanham, Md., training center for union electricians that specializes in "green" technology.
Republicans have denounced the stimulus plan as an expensive flop, pointing to a national unemployment rate stuck at 10 percent and December figures showing the economy shed 85,000 more jobs.

But the report from the President's Council of Economic Advisers said the economy is a lot better off than it would have been without the stimulus. Citing its own analysis plus a range of private sector summaries, the council estimated the annual growth rate last year would have been roughly 2 percentage points lower, and there would have been 1.5 million to 2 million fewer jobs.

I know, I know, "the consumer is stabilizing" remember? Let's look at personal income and spending.

Here's the latest, archived on The Ticker so it doesn't get overwritten (click for a full page):

SEE CHART AT LINK BELOW

Note that July, August and September are all third quarter. The numbers are +0.2%, +1.3% and -0.6%, for a net of +1.1%.

Perhaps you can square this with the following, because I cannot:

SEE CHART AT LINK BELOW

Income tax receipts square with employment (or rather the lack thereof), and despite the claims of the media that we have "10% unemployment" the fact is that the labor participation rate is back to where it was in the early 1980s. Worse, during the 2000 decade we did not return one net person to the labor force on an annualized basis but we did add 25 million more Americans to the nation!

We didn't lose 9 million jobs, we have a colossal THIRTY FOUR MILLION unemployed that weren't in 2000 - nine million who lost their job and another twenty-five million who came to (or were born into and reached working age in) the country but never got a job!

In these 10 metros, jobs are projected to grow and the housing crisis is stabilizing.

In recent weeks business in Washington, D.C. ground to a halt as record snowfalls pummeled the area and a sparring match over national health care reform hijacked the political conversation. But the nation's capital is getting something right: It is emerging from the recession better than any other major city in the country, according to research by Forbes.

There are two kinds of recessions : the one that economists measure, and the one that ordinary people feel.

The official recession is over. That's because the economy is growing again after a sharp decline, with GDP back to the levels of mid-2008. For people who have kept their jobs, suffered no loss of income and enjoyed a rebound in their investments thanks to the year-long stock market rally, things are pretty good.

Excerpt:

Here are five things that still must happen for a robust recovery to kick in.

In the week ending April 3, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 460,000, an increase of 18,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 442,000. The 4-week moving average was 450,250, an increase of 2,250 from the previous week's revised average of 448,000.

That "4" handle doesn't seem to be able to be hammered downward. But more importantly is the data in the unadjusted numbers - we are seeing two very disturbing trends here.

First is that "extended benefits" spiked higher by 77,403 in the last survey week available in that series (March 20th) but also the EUC series is showing what appears to be a lot of people rolling off extended benefits.

The household data in the employment report (for March) did not disclose anything that would account for this EUC number that one could call "positive" - that is, it's pretty clear that 300,000 people didn't come off EUC programs into work in that week.

The obvious cacaphony to further extend unemployment (from the 99 weeks now possible in some states) will rise in volume with this report I'm sure, but unfortunately that sort of support is exactly backward. At some point people have to have an incentive to move to where the jobs are or start business interests of some point on their own, and continually extending unemployment benefits doesn't accomplish either.

This is one of the giant "unintended consequences" of support for housing prices and "extend and pretend" policies. We should have forced the foreclosures through the system immediately and we still should do it now. A homeowner who is deeply underwater cannot move to where the jobs are, as they can't sell their house for what they have out in mortgage(s). A renter can scoot much more easily. We live in a nation where even in the depths of this economic mess (and all messes past, present and future) there are jobs - they just might not be where you currently live. In addition forcing the foreclosures through the system will force prices lower, which means that the newly-mobile worker will find it easier to rent or buy a new house - where they relocate to.

While it sounds rude, after nearly two full years of unemployment payments you're well beyond the "we're helping you" point and into the "we're paying you not to work" realm. A dynamic economy requires people who will become motivated to do whatever is necessary to find employment and sustain themselves. That "whatever is necessary" may involve pulling up the roots, and if it does, that's what people should be have incentives to do.

The fact is that even in The Depression 75% of the people had jobs, and there were jobs to be had - in some parts of the country. There might not be where you live now, but there are jobs - somewhere in this country, even if you don't like the hours, job description or pay.

I know nobody wants to hear things like this, and I'm sure I will be called names for suggesting "no more extensions", but the Federal Teat cannot be the support system for people over periods of two years or more - irrespective of how bad the economy is, in the form of cash handouts. We can only increase GDP by actually increasing output, and that means people have to have an incentive to do whatever is necessary to accomplish that - even if it brings howls of protest, and it will.